The reviewers for a given subprogram area responded to …energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/06...

By using lightweight structural materials, cars can carry additional advanced emission control systems, safety

devices, and integrated electronic systems without increasing the overall weight of the vehicle. While any

vehicle can use lightweight materials, they are especially important for hybrid electric, plug-in hybrid electric,

and electric vehicles. Using lightweight materials in these vehicles can offset the weight of power systems such

as batteries and electric motors, improving the efficiency and increasing their all-electric range. Alternatively,

the use of lightweight materials could result in needing a smaller and lower cost battery while keeping the all-

electric range of plug-in vehicles constant.

Using lightweight components and high-efficiency engines enabled by advanced materials in one quarter of the U.S. fleet could save more than 5 billion gallons of fuel annually by 2030.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) collaborates with industry to

improve materials that will increase vehicle efficiency while meeting consumer and industry expectations. It

does this through work on both Lightweight Materials and Propulsion Materials. In the case of Lightweight

Materials, VTO works to lower the cost and improve the properties of lightweight materials while maintaining

safety, comfort, reliability, performance, recyclability, and cost.

Research and development is done in collaboration with industry, national laboratories, and universities. VTO

contributes to the Materials Genome Initiative, a federal interagency effort to support Integrated Computational

Materials Engineering. It also works through government/industry partnerships:

The U.S. DRIVE Partnership focusing on light-duty vehicles

The 21st Century Truck Partnership, focusing on heavy-duty vehicles

The US Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP).

The Lightweight Materials subprogram’s major R&D goal by 2015 is to validate the ability to reduce the

weight of a passenger vehicle body and chassis system by 50% compared to a 2002 vehicle. This reduction

needs to be cost-effective and the materials need to be recyclable as well.

DOE received feedback on the overall technical subprogram areas presented during the 2015 Annual Merit

Review (AMR). Each subprogram technical session was introduced with a presentation that provided an

overview of subprogram goals and recent progress, followed by a series of detailed topic area project

presentations.

The reviewers for a given subprogram area responded to a series of specific questions regarding the breadth,

depth, and appropriateness of that DOE VTO subprogram’s activities. The subprogram overview questions are

listed below, and it should be noted that no scoring metrics were applied. These questions were used for all

VTO subprogram overviews.

Was the program area, including overall strategy, adequately covered?

Is there an appropriate balance between near- mid- and long-term research and

development?

Were important issues and challenges identified?

Are plans identified for addressing issues and challenges?

Was progress clearly benchmarked against the previous year?

Are the projects in this technology area addressing the broad problems and barriers that the

Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) is trying to solve?

Does the program area appear to be focused, well-managed, and effective in addressing

VTO’s needs?

What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the projects in this program area? Do any of

the projects stand out on either end of the spectrum?

Do these projects represent novel and/or innovative ways to approach these barriers as

appropriate?

Has the program area engaged appropriate partners?

Is the program area collaborating with them effectively?

Are there any gaps in the portfolio for this technology area?

Are there topics that are not being adequately addressed?

Are there other areas that this program area should consider funding to meet overall

programmatic goals?

Can you recommend new ways to approach the barriers addressed by this program

area?

Are there any other suggestions to improve the effectiveness of this program area?

Responses to the subprogram overview questions are summarized in the following pages. Individual reviewer

comments for each question are identified under the heading Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc. Note that reviewer

comments may be ordered differently; for example, for each specific subprogram overview presentation, the

reviewer identified as Reviewer 1 in the first question may not be Reviewer 1 in the second question, etc.

The reviewer said that the overall strategy for materials was well identified, particularly the Materials

Technology Gap Priorities slide. However, the reviewer did not see propulsion represented in this slide, only

the lightweight materials. The reviewer recommended a similar prioritization be shown for the propulsion

technologies, and also recommends showing a clearer breakdown of which items are higher priority.

The reviewer said that the presentation gave a good overview of the challenges that the materials team is facing

and some of the research and development, but delegated much of the explanation of the research and

development to the individual project presentations. The reviewer recommended that it would have been

clearer showing how the projects are linked into stated project goals instead of a list of projects explaining what

the projects are currently doing.

The reviewer said that key challenges were explained and summarized well.

The reviewer said that the roadmap addresses many of the challenges and the plans to address them.

The reviewer did not see a clear comparison to the previous year. The highlights shown gave some indication,

but the few shown did not mirror the breadth of projects.

The reviewer said that the projects are addressing broad problems and barriers.

The reviewer said that the program appears well focused and managed tactically, but the broader strategic goals

and timeframe to accomplish the goals were not shared.

The reviewer said that the overall plan, particularly for lightweight materials, seems to be an all of the above

strategy. The reviewer expects that eventually there will be a drive to down-select some of the alloy categories,

but the reviewer agrees that would be premature at this stage. The reviewer said that one strength of this

program is that the projects under this program area appear to be high risk/high reward, and that one weakness

is while both the lightweighting and propulsion sub-programs contain a computational or integrated

computational modeling (ICME) approach, the projects seem to be separate, rather than integrated or weaved

into existing programs.

The reviewer said that there is insufficient information to evaluate if the approaches are novel or innovative.

The reviewer said that the program seems well-integrated into federally funded research centers, industrial and

academic partners.

The reviewer said that the program has done a good job of facilitating interaction between these groups.

The reviewer sees a few gaps. The reviewer asked what materials beyond Mg and CF composite will be needed

to reduce weight beyond 37%, and how are predictive models shared and/or translated from academic to

industrial use.

The reviewer said that it is difficult to assess if topics are not being adequately addressed. The program area is

very broad, and there will always be tradeoffs on what can be accomplished with limited funding.

The reviewer pointed out that there are still a number of challenges in Al and steel that are unaddressed and

sparsely represented in the projects, as well as materials for glazings and other car components that could be

used to lightweight the vehicle.

The reviewer said that overall, the program area seems well aligned to deal with many of the barriers.

The reviewer said that it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the program area with the information

provided.

In this merit review activity, each reviewer was asked to respond to a series of questions, involving multiple-

choice responses, expository responses where text comments were requested, and numeric score responses (on

a scale of 1.0 to 4.0). In the pages that follow, the reviewer responses to each question for each project will be

summarized: the multiple choice and numeric score questions will be presented in graph form for each project,

and the expository text responses will be summarized in paragraph form for each question. A table presenting

the average numeric score for each question for each project is presented below.

Felix Paulauskas, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.

A total of three reviewers evaluated this

project.

The reviewer said that the targeted

approach on a specific portion of the

process is good. However, the reviewer

also said the carbon fiber (CF) program

seems to lack an overall approach to

achieve commercial application (cost

and cycle time) and environmental

barriers. The reviewer commented that

where we are and where we are going

seem to be unknown entities.

The reviewer found that progress is good but noted that actual results are limited by export law and should be

provided to reviewers to conduct an accurate assessment.

The reviewer said that research appears to be an exclusive activity. The reviewer remarked that the pilot line is

open but the technology appears closed.

The reviewer said that the plan is to continue, but proposed future research is lacking clear approach to what,

when and benefits. The reviewer pointed out that when queried about achieving cost goals, the researcher said

never. The reviewer asserted that the researcher must have realistic goals and objectives. The reviewer stated

that a positive response to accepting the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) goals and being

knowingly aware that the goals are not achievable needs be addressed by DOE. The reviewer added that if the

goals are not feasible, the project should not be awarded.

The reviewer strongly recommended that the DOE fund and conduct a life-cycle analysis (LCA) to assess

current energy content associated with production, manufacturing and end of life. The reviewer said that DOE

will be surprised. Much of the monetary cost of CF is related to energy. Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be offset by

using wind-based energy. The reviewer recommended that end of life (recycling) to redeploy the energy

investment must be addressed.

The reviewer said that cost is the major enabler to commercial application of CF, the others, which include

computer-aided engineering (CAE) and recycling, are not included in the scope of this proposal but

significantly influence the probability of commercial application.

The reviewer pointed out that the researcher is near end of career, and asked if there is a succession plan in

place.

Steve Derezinski, INFINIUM, Inc.

A total of four reviewers evaluated this

project.

The reviewer said that this is a very

complex project with a number of key

tasks and moving parts and the team is

working on a new strategy that seems

even more promising than the original

plan. The reviewer noted that recent

work has already generated positive and

commercially promising results. Overall,

it appeared to this reviewer that the

approach is working well and the team

seems to be fully capable of addressing

the sort of issues that have come and are

likely to in the future in a project of this

nature. The reviewer concluded well

done group.

The reviewer said that roadblocks are well defined, and that scale-up issues loom. Regarding magnesium-

neodymium (Mg-Nd) alloys (e.g., ZEK100), the reviewer asked how will costs associated with the rare earth

(RE) elements be contained. It seemed to this reviewer that much of the customer base wants to move away

from Mg-RE alloys because of cost. The reviewer asked why not for Mg-Yttrium (Y), and if there are recycling

issues. The reviewer asked if there is any compelling technical reason for Nd. The reviewer said that despite

these reservations, the reviewer gave this a 4.0 for the approach that is being developed, and pointed out that

this is really challenging work.

The reviewer said that INFINIUM continues to push the envelope in refining Mg using a very novel process.

This is essential for starting with a high-purity Mg alloy to which we can alloy in and deliver a higher ductility

Mg alloy for automotive applications.

The reviewer noted that the work plan has been altered significantly. The project does not propose to produce

primary Mg anymore. The reviewer commented that while it makes sense to produce the expensive master

alloys from the market point of view, the change indicates the process may not be not viable for a large-scale

Mg production.

The reviewer observed progress on all fronts, keep up the great work.

The reviewer said that the technical accomplishments appear to be on-track and of a high caliber.

The reviewer detailed that the project has demonstrated an ability to make very small quantities of material,

and has plans to scale up to make greater than 500 lbs. The reviewer asked if the Mg material produced in this

project be stampable at room temperature, or if other elevated temperature applications of the as-produced Mg

alloys are planned. The reviewer pointed out that the principal investigators (PIs) have a clear understanding of

energy balances, system and production costs. The reviewer would like to know what approach to optimizing

process parameters will be taken.

The reviewer asked what type of automotive parts are intended to benefit from this technology. If die castings,

then it is likely that the impact of this project will be less than what it could be were the focus on closure

components or even other structural components.

The reviewer said that the team had shown that it is possible to produce a Mg master alloy containing Nd.

However, it will be useful to investigate further whether other RE systems can be produced.

The reviewer said that the reach to industry partners is noted and is excellent on all fronts; Spartan, MagPro,

and Vehma are all great contacts. The reviewer encouraged the project to press on with the progress and good

work.

The reviewer remarked that it would appear that the collaboration among the team members is working well,

although the level of detail that was presented as to tasking and budget split-up was rather thin.

The reviewer observed good collaborations with Kingston Process Metallurgy, Boston University,

Exothermics, Spartan Light Metals, Vehma, and MagPro. The reviewer asked how the work is being integrated

together to address the production and product issues.

The reviewer said that many suppliers are involved. However, the ability to scale-up is not yet proven.

The reviewer said that the future directions were presented in reasonable detail and would indicate that a well-

developed plan is in place, and the reviewer anticipated good results in future reviews.

The reviewer commented outstanding, very interested in seeing the next steps to scale and make in excess of

650 lbs. The reviewer really liked a previous initiative to partner with companies to scale the process and find a

low-cost power source, such as hydro-power. The reviewer asked if the project team has thought about

incorporating thermal electrics to capture spent energy and re-use in other processes.

The reviewer noted that future direction was well presented. However, it was not quite clear to this reviewer

how the project will produce large enough quantities of material to address needs in the automotive industry,

for example. The reviewer asked if the main applications are focused more on engine components/powertrain.

The reviewer pointed out that only a master alloy containing Nd is being investigated. The reviewer remarked

that to make this process more viable, other alloy systems need to be investigated, and the possibility of using

spent magnets to recover RE elements should be investigated.

The reviewer pointed out that Mg is certainly a significant part of the picture for reducing vehicle weight (and

consequently reduce fuel consumption) and so this project is definitely aligned with DOE objectives.

The reviewer said that even though it is very long shot, production of Mg-based alloys will enhance the

capability of light weighting for auto makers.

The reviewer said that Mg development is always high on the list of automotive lightweighting options and is a

major element of VTO’s objective, and that the project is well aligned and delivering as promised.

The reviewer said that while Mg continues to face significant room temperature ductility challenges, the

present project is aimed at addressing a new approach to making Mg alloys. However, it is unclear if the new

Mg alloys that result from this project will be useful for closure components (hoods, decklids, doors, etc.). The

reviewer noted that in the end, Mg has only two active basal slip systems and one non-basal system at room

temperature. The reviewer asked how this project will overcome fundamental limitations of this hexagonal

close packed material.

The reviewer commented that no difficulties with the budget were described and so it would appear that the

resources available are adequate.

The reviewer said that the current project is appropriately funded, and the reviewer hopes there is another VTO

opportunity to expand this type of work with future FOA's on development of high quality, greener and lower-

cost Mg and Mg alloys.

The reviewer said that good collaborations have been engaged to support this project. It was not quite clear to

this reviewer how it all goes together, however, and some brief discussion about how the various bits of

information generated by the different collaborators fit together to support the program deliverables would be

helpful.

Xin Sun, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer said that the approach is

impressive and thorough regarding the

generalizability of the results as well as

gaining a scientific understanding of

variables that influence Mg casting

quality. The reviewer said nice job.

The reviewer said excellent work,

approach is solid. Modeling the

complexity of material processing

identifies the significance.

The reviewer said that the approach seems very empirical in nature. The reviewer was unsure of the path to

widespread use of the findings on castings of different geometry or composition.

The reviewer said that the project is complete and outstanding results were achieved.

The reviewer remarked good progress towards modeling a complex manufacturing/material process.

The reviewer said that collaboration was great, and it was good to see original equipment manufacturer-

(OEM) involvement at that level.

The reviewer observed very good collaboration.

The reviewer noted that collaboration and cooperation between Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

and Ford is apparent.

The reviewer said good collaboration, although the project would gain if all three carmakers were involved.

The reviewer said that the project is complete, so no future plans on this project. That said, the reviewer added

it would have been good to have a slide on technical transition or barriers to adoption that would have to be

overcome, or something similar. The reviewer would have liked a better understanding of the use of the models

(as opposed to the approach) to other applications, e.g., military vehicles.

The reviewer said that current research must identify the gaps to conduct future research activities. This type of

modeling is in early stages and requires researcher input to go forward.

The reviewer commented that it is not because the project is ending that this kind of work should be stopped.

The reviewer opined that it should be extended and generalized to include different Mg alloys, and different

casting processes (physical conditions).

The reviewer said that future work is implied (i.e., validate prediction framework), but details are lacking.

The reviewer pointed out that accelerating adoption of Mg through the development of analytic tools that

predict manufacturing quality will help reduce the weight of automotive structures.

The reviewer remarked that the ability to predict casting ductility (or lack of it) will assist in optimizing

component design and thereby minimize weight.

The reviewer said that modeling materials and processes are key to the development of advanced materials and

processes.

The reviewer remarked that casting is a fundamental part of the transport industry, and that a better

understanding of casting materials can be translated in weight savings.

The reviewer said that the project is complete.

The reviewer remarked that the project is finished, and guessed that resources were sufficient.

Tim Skszek, Vehma.


project.

The reviewer said that the approach was

excellent to identify state of the

engineering art of what is possible

regrading multi-material vehicles

(MMV), and the reviewer would like to

see conclusion slides

The reviewer observed a very good

approach, and elaborated that the project

is looking at all vehicle systems and

reducing the mass wherever possible.

The reviewer identified two approach phases: 24% weight reduction equivalent to a 364 kg weight gain to

enabling a smaller engine; and a 50% weight reduction. The reviewer said material optimization is optimizing

the best material at the best place, which is very challenging.

The reviewer commented that the testing of the Mach I vehicle results is extraordinary, and offered

congratulations to the team.

The reviewer emphasized that it is very impressive to have been able to demonstrate so many lightweighting

concepts in test worthy vehicles in such a short period of time. However, this reviewer does not feel the project

did much to overcome the technical barriers to high-volume production for the industry at large. The reviewer

believed the original FOA sought a 50% mass reduction while maintaining the comparator vehicle

functionality. The reviewer pointed out that to hit the 50% mass savings even in the hypothetical Mach II much

content and functionality had to be eliminated.

The reviewer noted that collaboration between Ford and Vehma was clearly strong and effective as well as

with all the suppliers.

The reviewer said that collaboration and cooperation between Ford and Vehma is obvious throughout.

The reviewer understands that Ford did not want to share findings of this project with others, but the reviewer

thought Ford would have gained if the other two OEMs had been involved.

The reviewer commented that the project provides a good list of areas for future research even though the

project itself has been completed.

The reviewer noted that the project is ending and the reviewer does not know whether DOE will fund more of

this; the reviewer thinks DOE should continue funding but on a broader scale.

The reviewer pointed out that Slide 20 identifies the gaps for the body in white (BIW) and is pretty good

(drivers of the gaps would be helpful). The reviewer commented that unfortunately, the vehicle gaps as

identified on Slide 25 are a bit vague and general, and mentioned that there were no cost or performance

targets. The slide content focused on general technologies (materials, joining, and corrosion) without

mentioning specific applications. The reviewer suggested a table of major gaps by specific vehicle subsystem

with current performance versus required performance targets.

The reviewer remarked outstanding project that demonstrates the state of the art in integrated vehicle

lightweighting and current limitations.

The reviewer commented that showing the difficulty in actually producing a commercializable 23.5% lighter

vehicle underscores the reality that lightweighting is not easy or inexpensive. According to the reviewer, the

project demonstrates technologies in a way that may entice all manufacturers to implement the demonstrated

technologies sooner rather than later.

The reviewer pointed out that every time you can eliminate some weight, you use less petroleum.

The reviewer noted that the project managed to get to the end, so the reviewer guessed the funding was

sufficient, although, for a project of that magnitude, it seemed to this reviewer that it was barely sufficient:

more funds would have been better.

The reviewer commented that the project is essentially over.

The reviewer said that while $10 million initially seemed insufficient to do what was required by the FOA, it is

not obvious how much additional funding would have contributed to further reduction in the mass

demonstrated or in the Mach II design. The reviewer therefore concluded that the funding level was sufficient.

Elizabeth Stephens, Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer observed very solid

applied engineering, simulation, and

validation work. The reviewer

applauded the work, noting that it solved

a problem that was of commercial

importance to a particular

industry/company.

The reviewer believed the work is

somewhat off target. For example,

focusing on being able to simulate the

loads necessary to drive the rivet is of interest but of limited value. The reviewer noted that the ability to

simulate the lap shear strength of the rivet joint could be very valuable, but until the accuracy of those

simulations can be validated they are of little value. Similarly, testing for fatigue life of the joints is interesting,

but according to the reviewer what is really needed is a modeling tool that could accurately predict the fatigue

life.

The reviewer commented that in spite of the text on the slides, the reviewer was puzzled as to why rivets are of

development importance. The reviewer did not see why rivets are essential other than being a cheap joining

method.

The reviewer commented outstanding end to a successful project. This is exactly the kind of work that needs to

be done: transferring advanced technology into commercial industry.

The reviewer remarked that the work that was accomplished seems to be of little value outside of this project.

Clearly, according to this reviewer, the work was well conducted and the authors delivered what was expected.

The reviewer said that partnership with commercial industry was very successful.

The reviewer said that it appeared Stanley has been involved throughout the project but it is unclear as to what

Stanley has contributed. The team lacks a supplier that is capable of developing a commercial system that is

viable for high volume automotive production.

The reviewer said that the project is complete, including the technology transition

The reviewer said that it is good to see that Stanley is generally supportive of the results of this work and in

exploring automation of the heating process. The future research areas articulated in the presentation are rather

general and difficult to assess, although the general direction appears to be sound.

The reviewer said that the project is almost over and the reviewer hoped there would be no more of this unless

it can be unambiguously shown that there is no other way.

The reviewer said that successful commercial technology for joining lighter-weight materials such as Mg will

benefit the adoption of these materials into automotive applications.

The reviewer said that this could enable joining Mg to other components thereby increasing the use of Mg and

reduction of vehicle mass.

The reviewer said that the project is complete.

Donovan Leonard, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer said that understanding

Mg corrosion is an important aspect for

improving the materials acceptance for

structural applications. This project is

aimed to develop knowledge about the

oxide formation on surface of Mg. The

reviewer said that the approach to study

bare and coated samples and different

alloys is very useful in understanding

the interplay of different elements.

The reviewer detailed that the basic science approach to understand the issues surrounding Mg corrosion

mitigation coatings is the right approach for this project. The investigators have shown flexibility and creativity

in the investigations.

The reviewer noted that the presenter stated (three times in fact) that this study was intended to be a basic

science study and was not intended to develop engineering data. In this reviewer’s view, this is the wrong way

to approach a study that is part of a program dedicated to reducing the weight of on-road vehicles over the next

decade or two. The reviewer commented that in essence, the production of engineering data is not a bad thing

and in fact, given the timescale required for new materials introductions into large scale automotive

manufacturing, this reviewer perceives that such data is of prime value to the achievement of the DOE

objectives.

The reviewer suggested that perhaps this study, which appears to be work of a highly qualified team, would be

more suitable as part of a discovery research program such as that conducted as a matter of course by the

National Science Foundation (NSF). Perhaps this perception of a lack of weight placed on commercialization is

not accurate, but that is the impression conveyed during the talk.

The reviewer said that the work certainly appears to be of good or high quality and it would appear that a good

deal of basic scientific data has been produced.

The reviewer said that the project continues to make steady progress in understanding film formation on coated

and bare Mg. The investigation on two automotive alloys gives direct input to future corrosion mitigation

strategies in the automotive industry. The reviewer noted that the investigations of the commercial coatings is

interesting but the results are not well integrated into the study. The reviewer suggested that perhaps results

should help set direction of the remaining studies.

The reviewer observed that the measurement of hydrogen (H) uptake due to different elements is very

interesting. However, effect of elements such as iron (Fe), copper (Cu) and nickel (Ni) on the corrosion of Mg

has been very well understood for a long time. The reviewer asked what the relationship is of the current

findings to the old knowledge.

The reviewer said that the project team has expanded to include key suppliers of coatings and Mg components.

The reviewer applauded that these are great additions to the team. The collaboration between the university

investigators, the Mg supplier, the coatings company and the automotive Tier 1 parts supplier shows an

excellent team and an appreciation for the complexity of solving automotive problems in light weighting.

The reviewer noted that the project is basic research, and it is good to see that many characterization methods

are being evaluated to study the surface oxidation. The reviewer noted that Mg is highly unstable and the

operational difficulties are well documented.

The reviewer commented that very little was said beyond a simple listing of partners about the tasking or

budget split-up or any of the other key aspects of collaboration, and according to the reviewer it is just about

impossible to assess how well that aspect of the project is working.

The reviewer said that plans to complete the project on time are solid.

The reviewer observed that there seemed to be a good plan going forward, although the presentation was so

heavy on scientific data and micrographs, that actual project performance data and forward planning was scant.

The reviewer said that Mg is one potential material to achieve significant lightweighting in cars and trucks. The

issue of corrosion mitigation is one of the barriers inhibiting the use of Mg components in automotive

applications

The reviewer commented that even though it is a very long shot, the basic understanding of the Mg corrosion

process can influence development of protection methods. Eventually this will enhance the use of Mg alloys.

The reviewer said yes, it will eventually make an impact, but according to the reviewer the presenter was

unable to give any sort of explanation of when or how that might occur.

The reviewer pointed out that the cost of the PI at $450,000 per year seems high.

The reviewer emphasized that virtually nothing at all was said about the budget or any of the other project

performance data, so this reviewer really cannot comment on resources.

Jim Quinn, United States Automotive

Materials Partnership (USAMP).


project.

The reviewer commented that as noted

elsewhere, this is a very complex project

that is actually nine separate tasks, and

yet, it is has resulted in a tangible

progress and so the overall approach

must be commended as outstanding.

The reviewer said outstanding approach,

45% weight reduction with respect to

steel (which steel), and a 20% weight

reduction with respect to aluminum

(which aluminum). The reviewer also observed a thorough process, and remarked outstanding international

project

The reviewer said complex approach to a technically challenging problem. Not clear from approach how

integrated computational material engineering (ICME) is working out and integrating together as a system. The

reviewer commented thank you for adding the tasks numbers to Slide Five from last year.

The reviewer said that accomplishments are outstanding. Test results are promising and showing areas of

success as well as continued challenges. The reviewer noted a lot of good data that should be broadly shared,

specifically with TARDEC and Army Research Lab (ARL).

The reviewer said that the work reported upon would appear to be an outstanding contribution to progress

toward much lighter vehicle structures. The project is actually nine separate tasks integrated into actual

hardware demonstrators of representative automotive structures, so this is an exceedingly complex piece of

work involving a very large number of partners and three countries, clearly not an easy task.

The reviewer said that the reported collaboration within the project team appears to be very effective, efficient

and collegial. The reviewer enthusiastically exclaimed well done on this particular aspect of the work on this

complex piece of work.

The reviewer said that collaboration is excellent.

The reviewer pointed out that managing such a large team must have been quite challenging.

The reviewer said that the present project is reported to be 90% complete at this point in time (June 2015) and

this reviewer takes that view that the future research directions discussed really refer to projects that are yet to

be fully defined. Nonetheless, according to this reviewer the remaining tasks appear to be on-track and

everything should be wrapped up by the end of calendar year 2015.

The reviewer said that the project is finishing up and the future work slide focused only on the tasks to be

performed within this project (which is appropriate). The reviewer would like to see the following in the final

report: barriers that still exist within the test structure with respect to the specific design, material,

manufacturing and joining techniques. The reviewer would also like a statement as to the applicability or the

limitations of the technologies investigated to other vehicle areas. Finally, the reviewer would like a table or

other representation of the technologies, problems, application areas (gaps) and performance metrics (current

versus required) for Mg.

The reviewer said that the project is over at the end of the year and, regrettably, there appears to be no follow-

on.

The reviewer said the project is clearly identifying the barriers to adopting a lightweight material such as Mg is

supportive of the DOE VTO mission.

The reviewer said that the work of this project is definitely very closely aligned with the DOE objectives

because it will lead to much lighter vehicle structures.

The reviewer said that the results speak for themselves.

The reviewer noted that it was reported that due some unforeseen difficulties, the project has been extended by

six months at no cost to DOE, and at present the resources appear to be adequate to permit completion of the

work within the new timeframe (by November 2015).

The reviewer said that the project is nearly over, and the project team has sufficient funds to finish.

The reviewer guessed that resources were sufficient, but in absence of a budget, it is impossible to say for

certain.

Xin Sun, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer said end of project, and the

approach to the final hole stretching

model was straightforward. The

reviewer said that overall the project

was excellent.

The reviewer observed a good approach

in comparing punch clearance to edge

cracking.

The reviewer said that room-temperature formability of an aluminum alloy is a significant barrier. Doll tool

result for punching is very interesting, even if it is counter-intuitive.

The reviewer said outstanding work, yielding unexpected but validated results.

The reviewer said that the test matrix was executed and results were obtained.

The reviewer noted that very significant results were obtained, and the reviewer would have liked to see other

thicknesses to test the viability of the scalability.

The reviewer said end of project, the resulting model predicted surprisingly well.

The reviewer said that collaboration was limited, focused, well-coordinated, and well executed. The reviewer

said that it was difficult to see who else was missing or needed.

The reviewer observed very good collaboration between an OEM, university and a DOE national laboratory.

The reviewer noted that there appeared to be extremely close linkage with the partner organizations,

particularly Ford. The reviewer did not give the project a full 4.0 rating only because there are few participants

involved, which makes coordination an easier task.

The reviewer would have liked to see a broader collaboration.

The reviewer said that future research is in the proposal phase, and focusing on implementation and cost

reduction, which is always a good area to focus on after successful research. The reviewer said that how the

project team will go about doing it will make all the difference. The reviewer would prefer to see some

statement as to the extent the basic work should be expanded (e.g., other alloys, etc.).

The reviewer pointed out that there is no application demonstration planned.

The reviewer noted that the project is ending, and asked should that kind of work be extended.

The reviewer said that anything that increases the application of aluminum in place of conventional steel will

greatly assist in vehicle lightweighting efforts.

The reviewer said that understanding material processing parameters to enable application and acceptance of

lightweight material is one key to commercial use and application of lightweight materials.

The reviewer detailed that improving performance of forming processes for lightweight materials lowers the

barrier for adoption. Developing a fundamental understanding of the process and having a simulation model

available will allow companies to optimize their processes for their products. The reviewer said that anything

to lower the adoption of new lighter-weight materials into vehicles will help make lighter weight vehicle

commercially successful.

The reviewer said yes, in the sense that the manufacturing would be quicker (and therefore cheaper).

The reviewer said that the project is complete and successful.

Rich Davies, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer said that the project is well

designed, and is focused on a novel

forming process aimed at forming 7xxx

alloys at lower temperatures (room

temperature is preferable). The reviewer

commented excellent use of

government-funded hardware (high-

speed cameras).

The reviewer said that the approach to

address the formability of 6xxx and

7xxx aluminum sheet with both national laboratory-level science and automotive supplier, American Trim and

Magna, production minded partners is great. The reviewer said that performing the experiments at PNNL and

then investigating commercialization with a supplier is a strong approach to the challenges.

The reviewer said that there has been solid progress on the technical areas for this project. Good information on

the strain rates during pulse pressure forming. The reviewer said that the decision to only simulate an

automotive part is understandable but disappointing.

The reviewer noted that while the project did not succeed in forming a 7xxx part, the learnings derived will be

invaluable for future projects aimed at developing methods for producing 7xxx automotive parts at room

temperature. The reviewer had one note to help the principal investigators: all graphics need to contain relevant

quantitative data. For example, on Slide 4, the forming limit plot has the labels possible high rate and quasit-

static. Please quantify all such terms. The reviewer asked if there was a finite element simulation aimed at

predicting whether or not a 7xxx part could be formed. The reviewer would like to know why the part making

not succeed.

The reviewer said that five partners have been engaged to work on this project with PNNL. The engagement of

each appears to have been sufficient enough to help the PIs achieve program deliverables.

The reviewer said great teamwork across the full spectrum of the organizations and automotive supply chain.

The reviewer remarked end of the project; no suggestion for future direction

The reviewer pointed out that the project will likely finish on time.

The reviewer said that it appeared that a main barrier to the wider-scale implementation of the pulse-pressure

forming method is supply chain. The reviewer asked if the PIs have investigated the reasons why, and if this is

related to the fact that 7xxx are primarily aircraft alloys. The reviewer asked where are (is) the weak links

(link) in the supply chain. The reviewer concluded that a more thorough investigation is required.

The reviewer said that aluminum 7xxx promises greater vehicle lightweighting if in fact the material can be

stamped into body structure components (b-pillars, roof rails, rockers, hinge pillars, a-pillars, one bars, etc.).

The reviewer said that high-strength aluminum is a key material for lightweighting. The forming of high-

strength aluminum is one of the challenges facing the material.

The reviewer commented that resources are sufficient.

Lou Hector, USAMP.


project.

The reviewer said that this is a very

complex project involving a substantial

amount of new knowledge and novel

experimental technique development. As

such, there are a lot of moving parts and

the team is encountering significant

challenges, some of which are

unforeseen and unforeseeable. The

reviewer said that the team appears to be

working very hard and staking a

systematic approach to the planned tasks

and to the solution of the problems that

are coming up and they are succeeding. The reviewer concluded overall, this is an excellent piece of research &

development and a talented and well-integrated team is doing a fine job on it.

The reviewer stated that this project is one of the most ambitious and important projects currently being

pursued to determine the utility and efficacy of ICME. It is important because it is using the ICME framework

of linking different length scale simulation models (atomistic material though macro product performance) to

not only accelerate the adoption of materials (as has traditionally been done), but rather to extract the required

material properties from the performance requirements to create new materials; a materials by design approach.

The reviewer said that generating and validating the models based on an existing material that is near the

desired properties is a good approach. According to the reviewer, but it is still technically difficult and of

concern how generalizable the various models are to the new material domain.

The reviewer suggested that the project team please create a slide next time that describes the limitations of the

models (chemistry limited, scale limited, thickness limited, process limited, etc.). The reviewer noted that it

was mentioned that dislocation models would be necessary, but more generally, putting together a slide that

shows the types of factors that have to be experimentally measured each time to validate models or the

expected factors that would limit the generalizability of the model.

The reviewer said that the experimental approach and the theoretical work are excellent. The reviewer said that

the goal is impressive, but the proposed operation schedule appears to be too optimistic.

The reviewer reiterated that there have been significant challenges and they are being overcome as they come

up.

The reviewer said that two steel compositions have been identified; even though this is due to the efforts of

Colorado School of Mines and steel makers, accepting these as the base alloys is commendable.

The reviewer asked why nothing was reported on the completed cost model. The reviewer wondered are any of

the cost factors related to the material models (e.g., chemical composition). In the future this reviewer would

like to see the milestone table accomplishments against the milestones for the whole project to judge progress.

The reviewer said that a lot of work and progress appears to have been performed on a very complex project.

The reviewer is not yet positive as to whether the team can deliver in the project timeframe, and asked about

validation. The reviewer pointed out that austenitic transformation is not yet included in the modeling, coupon

size only at the preliminary stage and heat treatment samples are even smaller, and the team will need ingots of

about 800-1,000 kg before the team can see the end of the tunnel. The reviewer said that it appears ICME will

be a function of size and weight

The reviewer said that collaboration is outstanding given the number and variety of organizations involved. As

expected on a project that involves this level of technical complexity and integration, specialty cross functional

task teams have been created

The reviewer said that the work of this large and complex team looks to be extremely well integrated and

collaborative.

The reviewer said good team, and noted extensive collaboration.

The reviewer noted there are some tough challenges, but looks good.

The reviewer recommended that the team has to concentrate on obtaining larger ingots.

The reviewer said that it is difficult to assess future work plans without milestone chart and better explanation

of where the pieces are going, when specific system level tests or demonstrations are going to be conducted.

The reviewer said that the lack of these integrated milestones is part of why risk assessment is relatively weak.

For example, a risk that is not addressed is what happens if a major university PI becomes unavailable to the

project. The reviewer wondered if this is not an issue. The reviewer inquired if there are sufficient grad

students/colleagues who can pick up the work without delay.

The target of 35% weight reduction makes sense and it certainly aligned with DOE’s goal.

The reviewer said that this is an important project for demonstrating how new lightweight materials could be

developed using ICME. ICME to date has primarily been used to accelerate adoption of materials into

application based on optimizing forming and assembly parameters. The reviewer stated that this project aims to

use the process to optimize material parameters.

The reviewer pointed out that stronger material implies less material, resulting in a lighter structure.

To this reviewer, the funding is clearly insufficient: larger intermediate ingot sizes are pricy and the magnitude

of the testing increases with ingot size; there is no way that intermediate sizes can be avoided before obtaining

industrial size ingots with the desired physical characteristics. The reviewer stated that DOE should already

plan on extending the length of the project. The reviewer recommended that makers of large industrial ingots of

specialty materials should be approached and included in such project.

The reviewer said that resources look fine.

The reviewer said that the impact of this project justifies the number of participants and the associated cost. At

this time, there appears to be sufficient funding, but the reviewer expressed some concern that later

manufacturing costs will be higher and affect the project. This is particularly true if there are any

delays/unexpected barriers that require an extension.

Uday Vaidya, University of Alabama,

Birmingham.


project.

The reviewer thinks that GATE is an

outstanding formation program and that

model of instruction should be exported

to other fields of manufacturing.

The reviewer said that it appears the

program is effective in educating

students in the area of automotive

lightweighting materials.

The reviewer described that the rating is a reflection of the presentation and its structure, more than the value of

the work. The reviewer is a strong supporter of the effort and believe it is worthy of a 4, but the presentation

does not show this. The reviewer thinks that based on the Q&A, this program has been outstandingly managed

and the funding has been utilized far better than the presentation suggests. For example, the leveraging of

funding and rotation of the students is significant and worthwhile. The reviewer recommended that a slide

should show this. This review is very difficult when all the information is in aggregate and not presented as

progress since last year. Also, the research projects are presented as disjoint projects. There do not appear to be

overriding themes. The reviewer said that this was a problem last year as well. Slide 6 attempts to present a

structure, but it is not used at all in the presentation. The reviewer detailed that there are a finite number of

students who are presumably working on a series of experiments/projects that lead to new knowledge. While

that would be one way to structure the presentation, it is not used. The reviewer acknowledged that the

Graduate Automotive Technology Education (GATE) program is undoubtedly very good and useful, but the

annual review slides are not helpful in communicating annual progress or future plans.

The reviewer said that the approach appears scattered rather than focused. The reviewer asked what are any

documented successes from the center that have been produced in lightweight composites, and what weight

savings in automotive components have been produced based on the GATE projects.

The reviewer said that the project has trained many students, and held workshops on lightweight metal casting,

composites manufacturing, materials selection and recycling. The reviewer said that it is difficult to assess the

technical merits of what the workshops accomplished. However, the results of the student efforts appear to be

substantial in number and quality. The reviewer concluded that it appears that the program largely

accomplished its mission and objectives for the year.

The reviewer said that the accomplishment on supporting a handful of students is acknowledged but there is no

indication of advancing the state of the art. The reviewer asked what the advancements are that have been born

at GATE.

The reviewer said no change in the education course developed from 2014 to 2015 according to the slides, but

the speaker claimed that two courses were new. The reviewer requested please make this clearer. The speaker

talks in terms of course development since inception, which was four years ago. The reviewer would also like

to have graphs of student attraction, retention, and graduation over time by year, and not in total. The reviewer

was unclear about how the research projects are developed and selected or transitioned. There are a variety of

research projects integrated with an educational program in automotive lightweighting, and for the reviewer it

was difficult to assess how the research projects fit together, if at all.

The reviewer said that there are indications of regular and strong interactions with several industrial and

educational organizations.

The reviewer said that the University of Alabama is at the center of a large pool of carmakers: they are in a

unique position.

The reviewer gave kudos to the team for engaging both community colleges, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

(ORNL), and industry. The reviewer was happy to see that this year's presentation more clearly presented

where the students are going and what they are doing. The reviewer offered congratulations. The reviewer

suggested perhaps putting in a table information such as percentage of students in the program working in other

organizations, hired, interning, or other interactions. The reviewer suggested presenting a slide tracking

graduates, or plans to do so. The reviewer inquired if the first graduate was in 2013. If not, that graduate should

be surveyed in 2015 (three years later).

The reviewer commented fair; there is little evidence of the purported collaborations. This reviewer had hoped

to see examples of projects with industrial partners in which the contribution of the center was clear.

The reviewer said the plan to the end of the project is good and should be continued.

The reviewer would like to see more how the future plans fit together over time in fiscal years 2013, 2014, and

2015. The reviewer would like to see ideas on program sustainment past DOE funding. There must be some

rationale to the projects that are pursued, even if the funding sources are mixed. The reviewer suggested

showing a matrix of projects over time with percent of funding source (if mixed/ necessary) by year grouped by

theme or overarching strategic goal.

The reviewer said that the description of future work appears to be too general.

The reviewer said that proposed future research is poor, the center appears to be hoping for more industrial

projects.

The reviewer said yes, and detailed that increasing the number of engineers capable of designing and

manufacturing automotive systems with new lightweight materials contributes to the commercial adoption of

these materials the DOE goal of lightening vehicles to decrease petroleum use.

The reviewer said that teaching our future engineers and researchers how to manufacture and work with these

lightweighting materials is crucial for rapid and widespread application of the materials in vehicle

lightweighting.

The reviewer said yes, because the students learn how to use light materials

The reviewer was actually impressed with the amount of research being conducted and the number of students

being supported for the amount of funding. The reviewer concluded very good investment. Additional funding

would presumably increase student participation and grow the program. The reviewer is concerned that without

a plan for future sustainment without VTO funding, the investment may be lost. The reviewer recommends a

one-year extension with funding to ensure the future long term success of the program (if necessary).

The reviewer said that resources appear sufficient for current level of activity. However, it would appear

appropriate and desirable to increase funding to be able to expand the program further.

The reviewer qualified the response given about resources by stating but they could do more with more funding

and that would be for the benefit of the entire country.

The reviewer questioned the return on investment for this program.

Omar Faruque, Ford.


project.

The reviewer observed good comparison

between steel front bumper and crush

can (FBCC) and composite FBCC.

The reviewer said that the project

objectives are focused on engineering,

analysis, manufacturing and component-

level validation testing a functional

automotive component.

The reviewer said that establishing the

steel benchmark was an outstanding

method for controlling geometry effects and determining the acceptable simulation validation range. The

reviewer recommended a slide that more clearly shows the thought process behind the validation tasks, i.e.,

steel design to determine validation limits, competing models, limitations of the competing models, etc. The

slide could also present how the project will identify gaps in carbon fiber composite (CFC) modeling. The

reviewer would also like to see a statement that more clearly addresses the expected limitations of the models.

Are the models highly geometry dependent, load sensitive, material limited, etc. The reviewer asked what the

anticipated applicability is of the models only for the structure shown, similar bumper structures of the same

materials, other structures that have certain characteristics, and what are these characteristics.

The reviewer said that the approach to performing the work is too broad and does not describe integration of

key activities that are needed for the successful outcome of the project. There also needs to be additional

thoughts given to the details of CAE correlation plan, and the key factors that can contribute to successful

correlation activities. The reviewer observed that very little content was shown on the development techniques

used for composite bumper beam design and assumptions that were made to derive the details of the concept

design.

The reviewer said that the project is significant and well thought out. Milestones are logical and one can see

how they build on each other. The reviewer noted an acknowledgement of a slow project start, but apparently

no impact on schedule.

The reviewer detailed that much of the presentation material covered the approach versus showing key outputs

from the conducted studies. No reference was made towards to details of characterization techniques used to

generate the needed parameters for CAE material inputs. The reviewer said that if coupon level experimental

data has been generated, then there was an opportunity to identify the gaps of the existing commercial codes

and university developed modules against coupon level experimental data while waiting for the testing of fully

assembled bumper beam components.

The reviewer listed the following: correlate physical properties; compression molding for fabrication; establish

reliability gap because strength for composite FBCC seems to be an issue; and corrosion between CF bumper

and frame was not considered at this time, but should be done.

The reviewer said that the 2015 progress report versus 2014 report lacks significant progress.

The reviewer commented large pool, and good members.

The reviewer acknowledged an outstanding collaboration slide. Each subcontractor has a clear task in the

project. The reviewer was still unclear how the meso-scale and micro-plane representative unit cell models are

integrated/work together when they are developed by two different teams.

The reviewer concluded that coordination with different partners appears reasonable. The reviewer said that

contributions from ESI are not very clear. Coordinating CAE model development and testing with University

of Michigan and Northwestern are not clear. The reviewer said that possible integration of university-

developed codes with commercial software were not reflected. The reviewer said that coordination with

validation of material models was not reflected in the plan.

The reviewer said that although the number of participants and degree of collaboration is very good, it may

also be the source of the lack of progress.

The reviewer said that the project is in good hands. Final results may be limited by the present funding.

The reviewer said that future plans are logical, low-risk, and effective at achieving project goals. The reviewer

suggested that thought should be given to more systematically formulating the robustness of the models,

specifically, their sensitivity to changes in system factors (e.g., materials, geometry, energy, and dynamics

speed). For example, the reviewer asked about the likeliness of any model to be able to extrapolate to military-

like high strain rate events.

The reviewer explained that because not much result was shown on CAE correlation activities at a coupon or

component level, it is unclear whether the project team has a plan in place to address the critical issues that the

team may run up against in the full bumper beam assembly.

The reviewer said that future research is not articulated in the 2015 AMR report. The significance of this

project is to correlate predictive material models to actual test results. The research plan does not articulate a

plan to deliver the Project Objectives. The reviewer said that there was no discussion regarding non-destructive

testing.

The reviewer commented that vehicle lightweighting is one of the key technologies for improving vehicle fuel

efficiency. Understanding how composite structures behave in high-strain rate events and being able to model

that behavior is a requirement to ensure commercial adoption of this lightweight material.

The reviewer indicated that an assessment will identify the gaps in predictive capability.

The reviewer said that the team has sufficient funding for the composite structure build and test.

The reviewer observed sufficient resources, and recommended better emphasis on the efficient planning of key

activities towards key objectives of the program.

The reviewer believed that the project is too skimpy on testing.

Glenn Daehn, Ohio State University.


project.

The reviewer observed an interesting

and very thorough approach to

determine what influences the process

and to quantify its influence on strength

and corrosion.

The reviewer commented innovative

project that can have great outcomes for

the car industry and others. Vaporizing

foil actuator welding is a technology

with great promise. The reviewer also

said joining dissimilar material.

The reviewer found that the approach is solid, with a screening study of 15 mixed material combinations and

then a focused study on six combinations. The reviewer said that it is okay to focus just on flat welding

The reviewer said that the PI provided information showing excellent progress.

The reviewer noted that collision weld is material transfer into each other, and that corrosion testing in

progress. The reviewer pointed out that peel strength in joint is greater than in material, and appears to be a

very robust process.

The reviewer said that the progress is good, but the rate of progress is a bit in question given the few months

remaining before the end of the project. The corrosion testing will further inform the future value of this

method. The reviewer said that the need for a standoff gap appears to be problematic in automotive design. The

reviewer suggested please look more at the fixturing and with the urethane washers to create the standoff. The

reviewer said that these would be difficult to include in high-volume processing.

The reviewer said that it appears collaborators have primarily provided opinions and guidance, rather than

shared responsibility for the research. Therefore, not much coordination was evident (or needed).

The reviewer said that there was little interaction with a supplier to commercialize this process, and hopefully

Johnson Control will help in the next years.

The reviewer said solid plan to wrap up the project.

The reviewer said that it is hard to ascertain what will be done in this project as opposed to what someone

should do.

The reviewer said that the project is close to the end, and asked if DOE intends to pursue such work.

The reviewer said that enabling material replacement with a lighter one makes a lot of sense.

The reviewer said that mixed material joining is a key enabler for many lightweight vehicle scenarios.

The reviewer said that this provides a new approach to join dissimilar lightweighting materials for vehicles.

There were no reviewer comments on resources.

Mahmood Haq, Michigan State

University.


project.

The reviewer commented excellent use

of graphene in the approach and praised

the mechanism for assembly and de-

assembly as excellent and timely.

The reviewer expressed that this is a

very good approach to an interesting

technical concept.

The reviewer judged that the approach

as not clearly appropriate for this study and questioned exactly how the investigators will use a rational

computational materials approach to advance this study. The reviewer observed that no evidence is given in

this presentation, and said that there is an apparent random walk rather than a directed approach.

The reviewer praised the progress from year one to year two as remarkable, citing the successful assembly and

de-assembly as a great feature of this project.

The reviewer applauded solid, valuable accomplishments and acknowledged the active sites identified in the

adhesive chemistries as a valuable addition to the state of the art. The reviewer offered that improvements in

the lap-shear strength by 3% to 5% graphene nanoplatelets (GnP) to nylon is a good accomplishment.

The reviewer cited good results but offered it would be better to use an adhesive other than nylon, because the

auto industry makes only limited use of nylon due to its affinity for moisture.

The reviewer acknowledged existing collaborators/partners appeared to be engaged and recommended that the

team should also include at least one automotive OEM and an adhesive supplier.

The reviewer indicated that the planned work with Eaton sounds good and recommended more interaction and

cooperation with the adhesive suppliers.

The reviewer indicated an understanding of the reserve that the team has maintained and suggested that this

project would gain acceptance if it had more partners.

The reviewer liked the way the project is advancing and hopes the present momentum can be maintained to the

end of the project.

The reviewer commented that the planned work with Eaton sounds good.

The reviewer stated that the project team seems to have a good understanding of technical hurdles and

cautioned to not simply assume that what the team learns will apply to other adhesives, further recommending

the research should move away from nylon and focus on adhesives to be specified by automotive

representatives.

The reviewer affirmed that an adhesive that could be easily disbonded or refreshed under carefully controlled

conditions would be a boon to assembly of dissimilar lightweighting materials, pointing out that it is difficult

or impossible to use more conventional joining techniques for assembling many lightweight material

combinations, and concluding this could speed more rapid implementation of lightweight materials.

The reviewer noted that enabling the bonding of fiber reinforced composites to metal and/or composite will get

to lighter structures than presently achieved.

The reviewer confirmed that joining of composites to steels and Al is a key enabler for lightweight designs.

The reviewer stated resources were insufficient, recommending the team should include the current car

industry participation and also add other industries where bonding is a significant part of their businesses.

Shiyun Ruan, Xtalic Corporation.


project.

The reviewer acknowledged that the

approach to the work appears very good

including the application of a systematic

attack on the key issues and a

determined approach to the challenges

that are coming up.

The reviewer found this to be a very

interesting approach and further offered

that it will be interesting to see if the

technique can be successfully scaled up

to produce sheet on a scale needed for

automotive applications.

The reviewer acknowledged that electrolytic deposition of Al to form sheet is certainly a stretch to accomplish,

and is novel, but emphasized that there are many remaining challenges that need to be overcome.

The reviewer encouraged the team and project to complete and present a detailed comparison of the project

material fabrication methods to current conventional sheet fabrication methods. The reviewer offered the

possibility to use as metrics the speed and cycle time for producing a one millimeter Al sheet processed from

an ingot to a coil of sheet with production cycle time and process energy considerations. The reviewer further

suggested the comparison of conventional to the electrolytic processes relating to technical challenges and

costs. The reviewer offered a possible comparison of the properties of the project material to that of Al alloy,

with zinc as the primary alloying element (7075 aluminum (Al)) which already has comparable strength and for

which there is a baseline metric on-cost available for comparison to these aerospace alloys.

The reviewer cautioned that the project appears to ignore the alloy component cost and processing costs related

to energy content and line length. The reviewer further suggested that the process may prove to be feasible but

may be akin to titanium in a cost arena. The reviewer judged that in the end you get 600 mega Pascals, 8%

elongation for an Al alloy which has high cost due to energy use and alloy content resulting in a high carbon

footprint and a material that is not recyclable due to alloy content.

The reviewer found progress on the technical issues appears to be quite strong.

The reviewer praised very good progress considering the short time the project has been underway.

The reviewer noted that the project is progressing towards first year go, no-go decision with the primary focus

on chemistry and pointed out a need be focused on alloy cost and energy content.

The reviewer encouraged that producing a six-foot by six-foot panel was a good start, noting it would have

limited testability in a true stamping process. The reviewer therefore suggested either a roll formed or stamped

aluminum-manganese (Al-Mn) door intrusion beam as a better starting target application compared to the

objective target of bumper beam, offering that a sheet section of electrolytic Al-Mn alloy that is six feet wide

and three feet long could potentially be roll formed or stamped door intrusion beam.

The reviewer applauded the excellent collaboration. The reviewer further suggested keeping this up,

concluding that, as a startup, the collaboration is essential to going further toward getting the electrolytic sheet

further processed into testable components in a functional product.

The reviewer acknowledged the collaboration properly includes an automotive OEM and can sheet rolling Tier

1 supplier and suggested that adding a collaborator with expertise in electroplating is needed.

The reviewer observed that it appears that the project is currently only an Xtalic nanostructured metals

corporation effort, pointing out that the project has not yet progressed to a point where Fiat Chrysler

Automobiles (FCA) involvement is needed and voiced the expectation that the interaction will increase in the

future.

The reviewer found that the collaboration was not described in detail making it difficult to provide a detailed

assessment of the degree and effectiveness of the collaboration of the work. The reviewer found no concerns

evident and further offered that the project appears to be at a relatively early stage, and concluded that a more

accurate assessment should be possible in subsequent reviews. The reviewer further suggested to improve the

assessment of the collaboration aspect, the project financing should be described in depth such as who is

paying for what and how much is cash versus in-kind, concluding that this sort of detail is always useful in

describing the degree and effectiveness of the collaboration in a large complex project.

The reviewer considered the decision gates to be good, emphasizing that they include cost targets, which are

critical to commercial applications. The reviewer offered the value of $2 per pound of vehicle weight saved as

an example metric used.

The reviewer considered it a good plan and follow through to continue to compare and relate the development

to current production sheet manufacturing processes.

The reviewer observed that with the project at such an early stage it is likely much too early to assess the future

directions that will, or should be taken. The reviewer further acknowledged that the team appeared to

understand the challenges that the project faces and expressed confidence that the project team would be able

to provide a more comprehensive view of their vision and future directions in the review of the project in the

upcoming year.

The reviewer observed that Xtalic appears to know what needs to be done to be successful in producing the Al

sheet for the project, and expressed concern that the team has not fully comprehended what will be needed to

scale up or to evaluate the cost of using their material in place of the incumbent material and related processes.

The reviewer concluded that the potential for weight reduction of the work appears to be substantial and is

certainly aligned with the objectives of the DOE.

The reviewer offered that increased use of high-strength Al will help reduce vehicle mass.

The reviewer acknowledged that high strength Al is critical to achieving DOE objectives.

The reviewer offered that further development of lightweight Al sheet is strategic and necessary to meet the

DOE VTO objectives in transportation light–weighting.

The reviewer concluded the funding is insufficient suggested that there was an additional need for budget for a

cost modeler to develop cost model of electro-formed sheet processing in order to set alloy cost targets. The

reviewer warned that the cost target of $2 per pound of vehicle weight saved does not provide much room for

alloy costs and processing costs.

The reviewer commented that this project looks to be appropriately funded.

The reviewer observed that the project is at a relatively early stage and little information on the project

financing was offered, concluding it was difficult to provide an assessment of the adequacy of the resources

available. The reviewer offered that because the presenter did not identify any funding issues it was concluded

that the resources were adequate.

Tony Mascarin, IBIS Associates.


project.

The reviewer commented that the

approach is very sound and it has

considered the many studies conducted

so far.

The reviewer found the approach of

technical cost modeling appropriate for

the investigation, and cautioned that

there is little confidence in the projected

costs of materials and manufacturing

processes which are not yet in high

volume production.

The reviewer found the approach stated in the presentation is reasonable, but judged that there were not

sufficient details provided on the assumptions required for costing. The reviewer further found the elements in

consideration reflecting on costs were not well described. The reviewer suggested that because much of the

study includes the critical review of prior body of work conducted by other organizations, it would be prudent

for IBIS to describe how the information was organized for critical review and assess the numbers accordingly

as though the team was responsible for standing behind the generated cost values. The reviewer suggested that

sanitized material cost, conversion cost, assembly cost, and labor cost could have been provided from the other

programs. The reviewer further suggested that because this was the first review at the DOE, it would have been

important to spend a bit more time describing the key outputs that were generated in the study.

The reviewer found that modeling of the technical cost considering a value of dollars per pound of vehicle

weight saved was too obscure of a target for a car vendor to simply explain to the customer.

The reviewer praised the team for completing the project as promised with the cost details based on the

available information. The reviewer pointed to the results indicating customer expectations for power,

acceleration, customer features, and luxury would need to change to achieve even a 30% weight reduction as a

significant finding.

The reviewer found it was very difficult to comment on technical accomplishments and was not clearly

understanding the approach and what the relevance of final numbers presented. The reviewer said carbon fiber

costing could have been explained better offering that the number of vehicles produced for BMW i3 and

costing associated with that vehicle is much different than the costing of similar size vehicle at higher

production volumes. The reviewer further pointed out that the integration of carbon fiber parts into an existing

plant that utilizes steel and Al joining and the related cost impacts were not described.

The reviewer calculated that the analysis had indicated the cost of reducing the first 30% of mass from the

average 3,300 lbs. vehicle is approximately $3,500, resulting in a cost average of $3.50 per pound of vehicle

mass reduction. The reviewer pointed out that further reduction beyond 30% at a cost of $3.42 per pound is not

a feasible selection. The additional cost estimate needs to be higher than $3.50 pound.

The reviewer commented that collaboration with others appeared reasonable and suggested it would have been

nice to understand the details behind the collaboration data that were provided to IBIS, such as comparison of

existing plants to new plants and the assumptions used for material cost, conversion costs and other parameters.

The reviewer commented that the team claims to have collaborated with OEM vehicle design engineers and the

Multi Material Lightweight Vehicle (MMLV) project team to understand costs reductions in customer features

and future scenarios.

The reviewer said that the project work is done on time and recommended no future work should be required

here. The reviewer further stated that future cost models on carbon fiber are not appropriate for DOE funding

because the drive for fuel economy improvements will drive the commercial cases.

The reviewer simply noted the end of the project.

The reviewer suggested that it would have been good if IBIS stated the assumptions that they were using for

the identified research areas in particular technical process cost modeling and how those assumptions derived

the future research areas.

The reviewer mentioned that the project tries to yield estimates on additional costs of lightweighting yet only

provides one sentence relating to the gas saving of 7% fuel saving for a 10% weight reduction. The reviewer

pointed out that this last number also depends on the efficiency of the engine, the transmission, the road

conditions and other factors not considered and suggested a new approach to that larger difficult problem

should be establish, with the help of the car makers, the approach carmakers would like to use to present such

material to their customers.

The reviewer applauded as a significant finding that the customer expectations for cars would need to change

to achieve even a 30% weight reduction.

No comments were received in response to this question.

John Allison, University of Michigan.


project.


project presented careful and detailed

macro-segregation analysis in high

pressure die casting (HPDC) Mg alloys,

and commented that the data being

generated in this project will be required

for future ICME projects on HPDC Mg.

The reviewer commented that it was a

clearly articulated approach with well-

defined tasks.

The reviewer commented that the analysis of multiple alloys with different elements is well planned.

The reviewer questioned the uncertainties of the chemical concentration measurements in the microstructure,

and whether is it a function of how close you are to the edge of the phase.

The reviewer commented that the project team seems to be on a good track, with experiments complimenting

the modeling.

The reviewer commented that the team completed extensive work in experimentation and modelling.

The reviewer questioned if any inferences can be drawn from of all of the data acquired so far to in-service

mechanical performance of HPDC and how heat transfer coefficients were measured. The reviewer pointed to

Slide 17, and suggested an improvement to provide some indication as to how the various parameters are

acquired. The reviewer further offered the example that these parameters were possibly acquired from other

programs, or computed via an ICME approach, and suggested the team present how all of the results tie

together to suggest improvements to HPDC Mg alloys.

The reviewer praised that there appears to be excellent engagement and involvement of researchers at Ford, the

University of Michigan, Ohio State University and Tsinghua Universities.

The reviewer commented that the partners are Ford Motor Company, Ohio State University and Tsinghua

University.

The reviewer commented that things look good as the project team is getting samples and the analytical

capabilities seem to be working.

The reviewer commented that the plan for future work has been clearly laid out.

The reviewer commented that micro segregation as well as macro segregation are significant in die cast due to

extreme rapid cooling rates and high velocity and suggested that efforts should be made to identify the effects

of these process parameters.

The reviewer cautioned that the development of micro-models for microstructure prediction may be unrealistic

and it seems to be a very tall order for this project. The reviewer questioned whether microstructure prediction

should be attempted only with a thermodynamic approach.

The reviewer commented that HPDC is going to be a needed technique for these materials to be used

commercially, and suggested this effort needs to be conducted in parallel with development of better

performance alloys.

The reviewer commented that improved ability to predict characteristics of HPDC Mg will improve the ability

to optimize the design and reduce the mass of cast components, the predominant form of Mg currently used in

automobiles.

Aashish Rohatgi, Pacific Northwest



project.

The reviewer commented that it was a

very good integrated approach

comprehending modeling and

experimental results in studying

solidification and heat treatment.

The reviewer applauded the novel

approach to measuring diffraction data

for Mg and Mg-Al alloy (Mg17Al12) in

an electron microscope.

The reviewer acknowledged the use of transmission electron microscopy (TEM) for the in-situ solidification

experiments is an excellent idea and cautioned that measuring the temperature will be a challenge.

The reviewer criticized that the inability to measure the temperature of the sample during the experiment, or at

the temporal scale, to look at the cooling and solidification kinetics, is a major problem and will potentially

negate any experimental observations coming out of this project. The reviewer further commented that thin

film and free surface artifacts inherent in TEM experiments and the effect of the silicon nitride substrate on

crystallization are not terribly well addressed.

The reviewer commented good progress.

The reviewer cautioned, that unless the project team can work out the kinks, this project might be in trouble.

The reviewer questioned where the material parameters in the model on Slide 13 originated from, and

commented that on Slide 16, it appears that two potentials were examined, both of which were found to be

deficient, with the first giving negative components of the elasticity tensor and the other requiring

modifications by the Principal Investigator (PI) to get close to density functional theory (DFT) values. The

reviewer further questioned the point of the potentials and suggested that if one were to change the alloy

content in the Mg alloy, then the potential approach would again be problematic and one would have to again

appeal to DFT. The reviewer suggested to discuss these issues with National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST). The reviewer requested on Slide 17 to include temperatures at which the reported data was

acquired with special focus on experimental data. The reviewer further questioned whether the project is

comparing zero Kelvin DFT results with room temperature experimental results and commented that the same

question applies for data on Slide 18. The reviewer was concerned how to relate the data on Slides 17 and 18 to

support the main objective of this project, which is to measure in situ kinetic information of Mg die castings.

The reviewer further stated that that these topics are completely unrelated with substantive details on the

various models. The reviewer questioned whether elastic properties support understanding of microstructural

evolution in non-equilibrium Mg die cast microstructures, and has the same question for the effects of defects

and vacancies. Finally, the reviewer inquired about how the kinetic Monte Carlo method for simulating

microstructural evolution of heat-treated sputtered films ties in.

The reviewer commented that collaborations were limited to one, and their results are preliminary.

The reviewer commented that ESI appears to be actively engaged in execution of the project and incorporation

of its findings in ProCAST casting simulation suite.

The reviewer questioned what ESI is contributing to this project, such as the ProCAST simulations for

example.

The reviewer commented that the plan is good and hoped the team can get the scope working and figure out

how to measure the temperature of the sample spatially and temporally.

The reviewer commented that in Slide 12, problems with focused ion beam (FIB) are identified and questioned

whether the current approach involves using sputtered Mg-Al and Mg-Al-Zn films for heat treatment work.

The reviewer further questioned what the approach is to determine diffusion coefficients and effective

migration barriers as a function of Al concentration and temperature. The reviewer said Slide 21 stated that the

technical barrier identified pertains to inability to measure temperature inside the DTEM, then Slide 22 says

perform DTEM experiments. The reviewer questioned how the barrier is to be overcome.

The reviewer commented that solidification processing of Mg is the first way this class of alloys will be

incorporated into lightweight vehicles, and the kinetics and microstructural studies during rapid solidification

are relevant and needed.

The reviewer commented that Mg is a potential lightweight replacement material for heavier ferrous and non-

ferrous alloys in automotive structures.


Alan Lou, Ohio State University.


project.

The reviewer applauded the great

experimental approach for generating

much needed liquid diffusion data,

adding that this is a tough problem and

the experiments appear to be novel and

sound.

The reviewer commended that a diverse

and detailed approach was established.

The reviewer acknowledged the nice experimental technique produces a lot of data with every run and pointed

out that the effect of hydrostatic pressure when the central metal melts while rigidly encapsulated by the

alloying solid metals was not really discussed or explained adequately during the question and answer session.

The reviewer suggested that the project team needs to address this explicitly and see if there is an effect on the

data.

The reviewer offered that the solution and precipitation of particles is controlled by diffusion and the

mechanism is not well understood for Mg alloys and further relayed that this is one of the works focused on

this subject funded by DOE. The reviewer commented that the effort to measure both liquid phase and solid

phase diffusion of different elements is very well thought out.

The reviewer commented that this program will generate a ton of diffusion data for the modelers to use.

The reviewer commented very good progress in experimentation, simulation and validation.

The reviewer commented that in the liquid phase diffusion experiments, for Al-Mn the evaluation is carried out

at 600°C, where none of the elements are liquid. More explanation is needed.

This reviewer explained that comments applied to the uploaded version of this presentation because another

version was actually presented at the 2015 DOE AMR by the PI, with Dr. Luo's name being the only name on

the cover slide. Referencing Slide 20, this reviewer asked which part of the diffusion coefficient versus 1/T

curves pertain to liquid and which pertain to solid. If solid is included in the diffusion coefficient versus 1/T

data, the reviewer inquired why are there not two curves to account for diffusional anisotropy of impurities in

HPC Mg (via vacancy diffusion, for example). It appeared that the data in Slide 20 was computed from the

literature and does not show results from the measurements conducted in this project. In Slide 22, which details

the precipitation model, the reviewer said that it would be helpful to have a bit more detail as to which of the

model parameters (e.g. material properties) can be measured, and which result from fitting to experimental

data. The reviewer also referenced Slide 23 and inquired about how good the data was fitting and requested

that this be quantified.

The reviewer commented it looks like things are working well

The reviewer offered that this is a basic science project and it is understandable that the partners are more on

the academic side than industry.

The reviewer cautioned that it appears that Ohio State University is doing the work and simply conveying

information to other partners rather than actively engaging those partners.

The reviewer questioned what GM is providing to the project other than alloy suggestions, and offered that it is

likely that GM could support the project with die casting facilities and measurement capabilities. The reviewer

requests to see a more definitive role for GM in this project. The reviewer relayed that Computherm is the other

collaborator.

The reviewer acknowledged that a well identified multi-prong approach has been laid out.

The reviewer offered high expectations for future work.

The reviewer commented on the team’s presentation of the Sheil model and the fact that phase transformation

kinetics in Mg alloys are not well understood, expressing concern that the future effort to resolve was not

provided in sufficient detail and requests more detail on how the project will specifically address this issue.

The reviewer commented that it may be useful to see what will be the diffusion in alloys as this can be studied

in future.

The reviewer commented that the benefit is in long-term, the understanding of diffusion mechanism, may lead

to development heat treatable Mg alloys that can be used in place other high-strength materials such as steel.

The reviewer commented that diffusion data for the alloying elements of Mg is vital to the accurate modeling

of microstructural development during hot processing of these lightweight alloys.

The reviewer commented that this project focuses on lightweight Mg cast alloys.

The reviewer commented that this is an enabler for increasing the use of Mg by improving modelling capability

and accuracy.


Karl Sieradzki, Arizona State

University.


project.

The reviewer surmised that this project

is aimed at studying the corrosion of cast

Mg alloys and it appears to be a very

well organized and properly conducted

piece of work.

The reviewer reported the approach was

not clear and suggested that the

presenter more clearly explain how the

various tasks will fit together to generate

the predication model, develop the basic

understanding of oxidation and corrosion, and how this leads to the development of corrosion protection

schemes.

The reviewer commented that it is difficult but necessary effort and very good scientific work. The reviewer

suggested to adapt the communication more to people not in the line of work of the authors.

The reviewer applauded the progress is outstanding, pointing to the new measurement protocol that appears

very effective. The reviewer related that a lot of data was available and that the slides were not as clear as the

presenter. The reviewer offered, for example, that one slide mentioned that EDS probe measures both

electrically connected and disconnect Al, which sounds good, but the presenter said that one cannot distinguish

between these two effects, which sounds bad. The reviewer found the slides too technical and detailed on the

data and did not provide enough on the conclusion and implications of the data.

The reviewer offered that given the type of study that the work presented represents, the work appears to be of

fine quality with a highly repeated and confirmatory set of results and a well-organized program.

The reviewer commented that overall the system too complicated and is concerned that the presented

hypotheses may not capture the real effect and offered that maybe this will come in a follow-on project.

The reviewer commented it appeared that the collaboration is going well with the work of each partner

acknowledged on the various slides that were presented.

The reviewer acknowledged this is a very good collaboration to cover a lot more cases and suggested there is a

need to add Arizona State University’s and the University of Toronto’s roles and work to the collaboration

slide. The reviewer applauded the advisory aspect of University of Toronto and would like to know more on

why they are involved and what their contribution is.

The reviewer affirmed this may be a good academic collaboration but the fact that the industry is absent is a

real problem. The reviewer suggests that such a work is necessary and, as presented, should be moved to the

DOE Office of Basic Science.

The reviewer commented that the future work slide is excellent and will hopefully be better when the approach

slides are improved.

The reviewer commented that the outline of future work is better than satisfactory but that without an industry

presence there is concern about the future of the project.

The reviewer commented that not very much was said about the future work but it does appear that a set of

future steps is under development. The reviewer suggested that the presentation at the next review focus less on

an extensive review of highly detailed scientific results and more on the project performance and future plans,

perceived barriers and an overview only of key accomplishments, which are of primary importance to DOE’s

vehicle weight reduction goals.

The reviewer commented that Mg is likely a core part of future vehicle technology and this work does support

DOE’s objective.

The reviewer commented that corrosion is a large barrier to Mg adoption and funding to overcome this barrier

is appropriate.

The reviewer commented that funding appears sufficient to achieve goals.

The reviewer commented that nothing on the budget was presented except the global financing of the entire

project and so it is difficult to fully assess the adequacy of the resources available.

Mark Horstemeyer, Mississippi State

University.


project.

The reviewer commented the overall

approach seems to be highly integrated

and well planned among a group of

experienced and talented researchers

working with the proper equipment.


approach is clearly outlined and very

well-articulated and applauded the high

degree of interdependence between the

various models. The reviewer recommended adding a risk analysis and risk mitigation plan considering the

case that one or more of the models proved not to behave as expected resulting in poor validation or the case

where the data is more difficult to collect resulting in a large variation in results. Additionally, the reviewer

recommended confirming metrics of model quality and risk considering the probability of occurrence and

impact.

The reviewer commented that it is difficult but necessary effort and very good scientific work. The reviewer

suggested adapting the communication more to people not in the line of work of the authors.

The reviewer commented that technical accomplishments were very systematic and showed outstanding

progress.

The reviewer commented that the work appears to have been quite successful.

The reviewer commented that collaboration between Mississippi State and University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champagne appears to be highly integrated and thus quite successful. The reviewer offered that industry

participation should be considered as it can be of great help in ensuring that projects are going in a useful

direction and that the results are likely to be adopted in the marketplace, further commenting that industry

involvement is really the only way for the results to have any real impact on vehicle weight, which is the whole

idea of the DOE program.

The reviewer commented that no information was found on collaboration and that this slide is missing from the

presentation so there is no idea who is doing what.

The reviewer pointed out that this project is nearly complete and the team said relatively little about future

plans.

The reviewer indicated that the future work is clear, because the approach was so well articulated and would

like more information on the model validation such as what alloys will be validated, how are they determined,

and what are the metrics and values to be used to demonstrate success.

The reviewer commented that future vehicles must be lighter to save fuel and a core component of the weight

reduction effort is the introduction of lower density materials such as Mg.

The reviewer further pointed out that the present project is aimed at making the widespread use of Mg in mass-

market automobiles much more feasible and therefore does support the DOE objectives to reduce vehicle

weight.

The reviewer commented corrosion is a large barrier to Mg adoption, and funding to overcome this barrier is

appropriate.

The reviewer commented that little was said about the financing of the project so it is difficult to assess the

adequacy of the funds on the conduct of the work.


Guang-Ling Song, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer reported that the approach

seems to be systematic and the result of

good planning by knowledgeable team

members; however, the presentation

concentrated largely on technical results

and relatively little was said about how

the project is actually being conducted,

so it difficult to comment on the overall

effectiveness of the approach.

The reviewer applauded the

commendable approach to make

stainless Mg to improve corrosion resistance, and requested clarification on whether the stainless Mg is created

by using a doping element with limited solubility or by creating a new phase.

The reviewer reported that the approach is clearly outlined and very straightforward, but not as interesting as

the basic idea offering that it is primarily an empirical data collection study. The reviewer further

acknowledged that the using a sputtering method of creating alloys is a good idea.

The reviewer related that it appears that a good deal of technical data has been obtained and several key pieces

of new knowledge have resulted from the work; however, a comparison of expected milestones and results

achieved was never presented and so it is challenging to state for sure just how well the project worked.

The reviewer praised the activity citing excellent work and accomplishments in the first year.

The reviewer relayed that the comparison between Mg-titanium (Ti) and Mg-chromium (Cr) show promise to

be very interesting and either one might resolve the Mg corrosion issue.

The reviewer commented that the collaboration is explained and is clear for this project.

The reviewer commented that the team appears to be good and seems to work well together; however, the

reviewer also expressed to be un-convinced that the industry consultant had any input in the presented material

and offered that a real industry presence is a necessity on a project to result in some real applications.

The reviewer commented that the members of the research team were flashed up on the screen but nothing

further was said about how the various entities are involved in the work the budget split-up, or the tasking

assignments. The reviewer acknowledged, in fact, that good results have been obtained, suggesting that the

collaboration is actually working, but could not be sure.

The reviewer commented that the project is nearly completed and so the prospects for future work really refer

to future, separately funded projects. The reviewer suggested to add some words about the potential for a cost-

effective automotive solution as little or nothing was said about estimates of future costs.

The reviewer observed that the future work is clear, because the approach is so straightforward.

The reviewer found the prospects for future work are too skimpy and not detailed enough.

The reviewer explained that the work is related to reducing the corrosion of Mg alloys in automotive service

and therefore is clearly is aligned with the DOE objective to reduce vehicle weight.

The reviewer concluded that corrosion is a large barrier to Mg adoption and finds funding to overcome this

barrier is appropriate, even if not all approaches will be successful. The reviewer further declared that if the

problem was easy, it would have been solved by now.

The reviewer suggested it would be an improvement to see more industry involvement and more funding for

the idea of stainless Mg.

The reviewer mentioned that little was said about the budget and no issues about its adequacy were raised

during the presentation.

The reviewer commented that the funding appears sufficient to achieve goals.

Adrian Sabau, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.


project.

The reviewer related that this was a

novel approach to joining involving

laser-assisted roughening of material

surfaces.


approach chosen is generally good,

establishing baseline information set for

the raster and spot methods of surface

roughening. The reviewer further stated,

however, the approach could be

improved with go versus no-go decision points. The approach should also comprehend typical joint

configurations such as peel tests.

The reviewer praised the idea is novel and interesting while offering that the presentation suffers from clarity.

The reviewer further stated that the question and answer session required too many questions for the reviewers

to clearly understand what was done. The reviewer believed the need for a slide that explains the difference

between raster and spot. Raster is mentioned for the first time on Slide 14. The reviewer questioned whether

Slide 7 is intended to conveys the process on Al, expressing the understanding that the process is only on the

composite side. The reviewer further suggested the need to explicitly state that the process is applied to both

materials. The reviewer suggested the results be presented with statistical significance levels, assuming that at

least two replicates were conducted for each trial and also provide military relevance because TARDEC is a

co-sponsor.

The reviewer commented that there appears to have been a lot of work conducted, even more than was fully

presented. The reviewer stated that some of the results appear to have been withheld because of propriety as

well as patent potential, which is understandable; however, the reviewer found it difficult to assess the amount

of work conducted without more disclosure.

The reviewer commented that if the project involves joining of Al alloys in the family (Al 5XX) to carbon

fiber, it seems that the team may need to be concerned about corrosion, especially for metal alloys containing

Mg.

The reviewer judged that this appears to be a needlessly high technology solution to a problem that can be

addressed using conventional methods, considering it only provides marginally better performance than with

conventional techniques.

The reviewer related that the collaborators are Magna, Plasan, and 3M.

The reviewer cautioned that collaboration was limited to Magna providing material and 3M adhesive advice,

and suggested that the project would improve from more collaboration with the U.S. Army and possibly

automotive OEM advisors.

The reviewer expressed that it is not obvious that collaborators have done anything more than providing

materials, or providing purchased services.

The reviewer commented that future work can be improved to look at the most reasonable/efficient

combination of surface preparation. The reviewer suggested a more structured approach with clear metrics,

such as processing time and cost; and joint strength. The reviewer related that there appears to be seven

possible combinations including the baseline, given three preparation conditions for Al and two for carbon

fiber component CFC plus baseline.

The reviewer related that it seems that the proposed surface roughening process is an extra step in joint

manufacturing and questioned the feasibility from a cost standpoint. The reviewer also questioned if there is

any modeling planned that would lead to an optimal design of the patterned joint interfaces via laser

roughening, questioning how the geometry of the surface topography influence surface wetting of the adhesive.

The reviewer cautioned that while corrosion is an issue for dissimilar material joints, it is not apparent that this

technique would do anything but aggravate the corrosion, and suggested that because there is little apparent

benefit to the use of this technique, only limited improvement in shear strength, the additional expense to

document corrosion behavior appears to be a needless expense. On this basis the reviewer suggests to simply

wrap up the project.

The reviewer commented that dissimilar material joining is considered one of the most important technical

barriers to the multi-material lightweight vehicle.


The reviewer commented that there is no apparent need to continue the work.

Tim Weihs, Johns Hopkins University.


project.

The reviewer commended the approach

as novel and acknowledged that the

project is well structured and presented.

The reviewer suggested that given the

initial results a risk mitigation plan may

be warranted for the case of failing the

go, no-go criteria of 10 mega-Pascal.

The reviewer also suggested a slide that

shows a structured research approach,

such as a series of designed experiments

for identifying the particular chemistries

and process parameters. The reviewer

related that while the presentation was

very well presented, it also is apparent that the problem is quite complex and that there is likely an optimum

combination of chemicals, their quantity, reactant spacing, and foil thickness for a particular set of materials to

be joined. The reviewer suggested that a fishbone or other diagram identifying the variables and their levels

and how the tasks are addressing determining their optimal level would be helpful.

The reviewer praised that the team was doing well at addressing the fundamentals of joining with the

reduction-oxidation (redox) foils and suggested that the team keep in mind right from the start a vision of how

and where this foil, if successful, will be used in automotive production as this could help identify suppliers or

other collaborators to engage.

The reviewer commented that significant progress was made relating that lot of experiments were conducted,

and a lot of information gathered and lessons learned. The reviewer judged that accomplishments were well

explained and presented.

The reviewer commented that this activity is obviously still very much a work in progress. The reviewer found

it encouraging to see that moderate bond strengths can be obtained even now; however, related that it was

redundant for the team to state that the bond strength depends strongly on foil chemistry and the materials

being bonded because that is the thrust of this project. The reviewer encouraged the work, stating it will be

interesting to see what comes from the dilution studies and optimization.

The reviewer stated that collaborations are limited at this time and suggested it may be worthwhile to reach out

to other interested parties that work in the automotive research area and attend the Annual Merit Reviewer

regularly as one of the OEM reviewers had a comment that the presenter acknowledged was helpful.

The reviewer stated that it is unclear what Dr. Woll's role is in the project, and therefore collaboration,

interaction and coordination are not readily apparent.

The reviewer suggested that a slide on the mathematical modeling and simulation would be good to improve

the proposed research plan and suggested an improvement to the future work would also be a slide on the

structured method by which the future work goals will be accomplished. The reviewer stated it may be an

educational improvement to clarify what is known and is the starting point and what has been learned through

this project. The reviewer also questioned if there were any statistical significance tests that have been

performed

The reviewer commented that it looks like the work to optimize dilution for the nickel oxide and copper oxide

(NiO and Cu2O) systems is well understood and will be addressed. The reviewer suggested that more work

should be included to address the ability to actually apply this method to more than laboratory specimens, and

to begin to address corrosion issues.

The reviewer commented that dissimilar material joining is considered one of the most important technical

barriers to the multi-material lightweight vehicle

The reviewer commented that this could potentially aid in reducing vehicle weight by facilitating joining of

dissimilar metals.


Yuri Hovanski, Pacific Northwest



project.

The reviewer praised the approach as

outstanding relating it includes all major

tasks to overcome all barriers to

adoption including cost, joint strength

performance, as well as modeling and

simulation that can be used by the

process user to a to optimize and adapt

to future changes, geometry changes,

and process consistency for production

readiness.

The reviewer praised the approach of

including fully the automotive supply chain and testing production intent geometries as a great approach for the

project. The reviewer emphasized that the four-phase technical approach will address the critical issues with

this enabling technology.

The reviewer related that the project is ahead of schedule and introducing a more complex model to enhance

the accuracy of the simulation models. The reviewer related that the project team had completed initial

investigation on curvilinear welding.

The reviewer praised the results on the temperature measurements and the heat affected zone as great. The

reviewer suggested it would be good in future Annual Merit Review presentations to clearly tie project

technical accomplishments to the presented four-phase, multiple step project plans and noted that beginning to

characterize the material properties of the friction stir welding (FSW) weld material area is highly valuable

The reviewer praised the collaboration with the material supplier, Alcoa, the process user, TWB, and the end

customer, GM, as excellent, offering that they help drive the project forward, and also identify the acceptability

of the results and the desirability of certain processing conditions to help the research team identify problems

that need to be overcome. The reviewer relayed the example of adding Barlat coefficients into consideration.

The reviewer commented that there was strong collaboration throughout the automotive supply chain.

The reviewer commented that there was a strong plan for future work to address the project research.

The reviewer suggested it would be an improvement to see a table of success metrics, values, and milestones

and when they will be accomplished.

The reviewer commented that rapid, low-cost joining technologies for advanced automotive materials will help

accelerate the adoption of lightweight materials.

The reviewer commented that tailor welded Al blanks give the design engineer more flexibility to optimize the

part weight.


Steve Logan, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

US LLC.


project.

The reviewer said the approach to

develop the upset protrusion joining

technique for mixed material joints is

creative and exciting.

The reviewer commented that a

challenge to the use of cast Mg is the

joining to other materials. The reviewer

further related that in response to this

challenge, the team has developed a

mechanical joining process using in-cast

protrusions. The reviewer acknowledged that comparing this new technique to other mechanical bonding, self-

pierce riveting (SPR), is a good idea and cautions that this process cannot be used if the material is not cast.

The reviewer said it appears to be an important project with enough experiments to obtain reliable statistics.

The reviewer commented that the amount of work done is astonishing and the team should be commended.

The reviewer explained that the qualification of the process is ongoing and it is as planned.

The reviewer commented that the team has characterized the standard joints as a baseline for the benchmark for

the future testing of mixed material joints and praised the work on the Mg to Al joins as a fantastic

accomplishment. The reviewer offered that the 650 trials shows the dedication of the team to producing high

quality, valid results. The reviewer suggested including a dimensional tolerance study to help increase the

manufacturability of the process.

The reviewer commented that the supply chain is included in the project.

The reviewer commented that it is all internal to FCA and would have preferred if others had joined the project.

The reviewer commented that the cross functional team, including a coating finisher and a coating supplier,

indicates the collaborative nature of the project team.

The reviewer commented that corrosion is indeed very important and the reviewer hoped that the team will

continue to work with the same care and diligence.

The reviewer commented that the proposed work addresses all the areas of the technical development plan.

The reviewer summarized that the future plan includes corrosion testing and other shapes and suggested it may

be interesting to see whether this technique can be extended to other cast alloys including Al. The reviewer also

surmised that the investigation can extend to use free standing protrusions for other wrought materials.

The reviewer commented that joining and corrosion of mixed material joints is a key enabler for lightweight

vehicle designs.

The reviewer commented that resources would be insufficient if another carmaker had been involved.

3-D Three Dimensional

Al Aluminum

ARL Army Research Lab

BIW Body in white

CF Carbon fiber

CFC Carbon fiber composite

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

Cu Copper

DOE Department of Energy

FBCC Front bumper and crush can

Fe Iron

FOA Funding Opportunity Announcement

FY Fiscal Year

GATE Graduate Automotive Technology Education

H2 Hydrogen

ICME Integrated Computational Material Engineering

LCA Life-cycle analysis

LCCF Low-Cost Carbon Fibers

Mg Magnesium

MMV Multi-material vehicle

Nd Neodymium

NF Nanofiber

Ni Nickel

NSF National Science Foundation

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PI Principal Investigator

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

RE Rare earth

TARDEC Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center

USAMP United States Automotive Materials Partnership

VTO Vehicle Technologies Office

The reviewers for a given subprogram area responded to …energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/06...

Documents

Transcript of The reviewers for a given subprogram area responded to …energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/06...